Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly against investigating the Iraq war.
(from his voting record at theyworkforyou.com).

In other words, an odious yes man. Can I suggest, Mr Malik, that you might, just might, be open to charges of rank hypocrisy? Can I also explain to you that you have forever surrendered your right to complain about any such treatment at airports.
(I want to swear here such is my anger at this vile man’s arrogance but I shall desist and go my powerless way, probably having ensured that I am now on the US government’s Watchlist – ah well, rendition for me; that way, I understand, you avoid customs altogether).

British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.

So what about ordinary innocent UK and US citizens? Is it okay for them to be thrown into the gears of the terror-mill while those responsible for the mess bypass the whole thing?

A better man would have been more inclusive:

Innocent travellers should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.

Either he’s got a serious authority problem, or he’s seriously unlucky…

Getting beaten up by riot police is often a matter of being at the “wrong” demonstation. Riot police are not normal policemen. They are often thugs.

Living as if we’re in a free society should not be considered a “serious authority problem”.

Let’s try another “real question”: why would the DHS invite someone to be a keynote speaker at a anti-terrorism conference they organized, if the person were actually of sufficient interest to be considered worth detaining at Dulles airport (by the very same DHS, obviously)?

Given that it’s happened twice, I’m looking for a plausible answer which doesn’t refer to incompetence or racism, but I’m not having much luck. Perhaps you can be of assistance.

Unfortunately, a real terrorist probably won’t be foolish enough to be so obvious as to use a real passport with an Arab (or even possibly Arab) name on it. He (or she) will have dyed their hair blonde, be wearing a Hawaiian shirt, and traveling under the name “Michael Hunt.”

The real question, not addressed in the pull quotes in the posting is this: “What is it in his official background that causes him to be considered a person of interest, and what has he done to mitigate/eliminate that since his previous visit?”

I’d have a couple of other real questions, like “How can John Q. Public tell if he’s a ‘person of interest,’ how can he (or the BBC, for that matter) tell what made him a person of interest, and how can he mitigate that at all?”

Of course not, everyone was just doing their job and following orders. We are all good Germans.

I’d be interested to see your source, Boomzilla. It’s possible he’s playing it up for the media, but it’s also possible he’s telling the truth. M&C also reports that his luggage was searched.

I’m not up on TSA procedures, but I would think that an MP from the UK would be given a pass on the usual screening.

Additionally, check out the Reddit thread on this story — as someone there points out, apparently this guy voted for similar security measures in the UK. So what’s he whining about? He made his bed, etc.

http://reddit.com/info/5zc3m/comments/